science, objectivity, the scientific method, the Standard Model, and the Other Model

1. salvatore gerard micheal science, objectivity, the scientific method, the Standard Model, and the Other Model

2. wrong definition of science: • "I'm gonna prove my idea! Even if I must shove it down your throat!" • Science is not proving any particular idea. • Typically, science is disproving ideas. • Science is not about proving your pet theory. • Science is about disproving alternatives so that you're left with very few choices to explain phenomena. • Occam's Razor is core to science: given competing theories explaining some set of phenomena, the simplest theory, the one with the least number of assumptions - tends to be the correct one.

3. Objectivity is also core to science. It means honestly attempting to look at alternatives equally. Key words here are honestly and equally. Another way of saying it is: a balanced perspective. This is extremely difficult in science, in practice, because we're human beings and, somewhat automatically, have a preference for: ideas/concepts which fit our rational framework, ideas/concepts which fit our belief/religious system, and ideas which appeal to us for any number of reasons. Perhaps we desire to 'get along' with a close associate, we might appear to endorse some of their ideas so that we may cooperate for other endeavors.. This, in particular, is not scientific dishonesty - it's simply human nature and sometimes required in real human life. But extend that concept to a group of associates. We might have to adopt a set of values in order to be allowed to interact with them, even if we disagree with those values. We might end up violating our own integrity in order to 'find a place to air our own ideas' or develop them.. This can be the case in conventional institutions or even here in the NPA.

4. The point above is: there's great value in a humble and balanced perspective. • .. A large part of my 'mission at NPA' is to inspire those individuals i interact with.. • Part of inspiration is asking questions. Science cannot make progress without asking questions. But not just 'any old questions'.. Sometimes, it must be 'the right questions' asked at 'the right time' for science to make true progress. • Let's consider this moment in scientific history: • the Standard Model predicts the Higgs, responsible for mass in that scenario • research into General Relativity predicts gravitational waves; • energy can be distributed through the fabric of spacetime • the Standard Model has done partial unification of 'four forces': • electro-weak (electromagnetism with weak nuclear) • strong • gravity • combining them, reducing them, to three forces above

5. The Standard Model has two concepts at its heart: • inherent randomness; particles are probability waves; particles resemble random variables • forces are mediated by virtual exchange; things called 'virtual bosons' mediate each force • Convention contends this is the simplest theory explaining quantum phenomena and gravitation. • They believe they have been 'following' Occam's Razor in development of the Standard Model and GR. But have they?

6. i realize the name Einstein is somewhat 'dirty' here in NPA .. Not many favor that man nor his ideas. But he had some interesting proposals. The equivalence between matter and energy. The idea that matter warps spacetime.. These ideas, no matter how 'wrong' they seem to some NPA members - have some value and inspired some aspects of the Other Model. • So what is the Other Model? It's actually quite simple..

7. The ideas are exceedingly simple and conservative: • 0. things interact only when they have something in common • (charges interact, masses interact, magnets interact,.. • and perhaps 'most importantly': photons and masses interact) • 1. space is Euclidean, flat, continuous, inelastic, and explicitly 3D • 2. what we think of as curved space, GR, is actually curved time: TR • TR explains mass, inertia, gravitation, and strong force • 3. conservation of curvature is perhaps the most fundamental law in our universe • as a consequence of this, there must be antiphotons, • photons with very slight negative curvature; they immediately become the preferred • mechanism for electromagnetic interactions • 4. consistent with this proposal: photons are transverse electromagnetic waves oscillating • out of phase with temporal curvature: explicitly real entities with exact specifications; • these entities must be describable as spacetime wavelets / spacelets • 5. electrons, protons, and the like must also be describable as spacelets

8. Of course, there are many implications (some are directly testable) of this perspective. Blackholes become curiosities - nothing more. Gravitational waves become unlikely. Higgs become pure fantasy. W/Z bosons are simply intermediate decay products.. • ... • There's too much data to try to cram: equation details, attempts at spacelet design, and why TR explains the features mentioned above - into today's meeting. i wanted to present an overview of my take on the scientific method, why convention has gone astray, and basic details of the Other Model. Below, please find a brief introduction to three core concepts required in the Other Model but neglected by convention..

9. The impedance of space: • electrical engineering books, like Kraus, can derive the impedance of space, ~377 ohms, from the perspective of an ideal transmission line • this concept is absolutely required in the Other Model • it's a quality of spacetime or time • so spacetime is not strictly Euclidean • Elasticity: • any medium that can be 'stretched' must be elastic to some degree • you cannot stretch/deform an inelastic medium; this is an engineering fact • therefore, spacetime (or time) must be elastic • with a few assumptions, this value can be calculated explicitly • so from another perspective, spacetime is not strictly Euclidean • The exact nature of a photon/electromagnetic wave: • in Kraus, you can find a diagram of a transverse electromagnetic wave (in other words, a photon) • it's described as 'self propagating'.. • but this is extremely dissatisfying - WHY does it self-propagate? .. no one would seem to suggest why..

10. Let's deal with the first two issues first. There must be some way spacetime/time 'encodes' the properties into 'the fabric' of spacetime/time.. Somehow, if the universe is 'defined' anywhere, it must include those two concepts. Our universe cannot allow electromagnetic interactions without impedance; our universe cannot allow elastic interaction without elasticity. These seem to be basic engineering facts. Spacetime/time is an impeding elastic medium. • The reason i keep saying 'spacetime/time' is because the simpler idea is time alone. If we allow spacetime to curve, we need another dimension for it to 'curve into': 5D. So this idea requires a fifth dimension .. Not very elegant; we don't see/sense a fifth dimension.. The simpler idea is that time alone curves into space - not requiring any extra dimensions.

11. Now let's deal with the exact nature of the photon: • Let's suppose for a moment that convention is correct about everything: • the Higgs determines mass • virtual bosons determine forces between masses • masses are random variables • and photons cannot be described exactly - they can only be talked about as ensembles • it's meaningless, within the Standard Model, to even try to talk about individual photons.. • but.. • If that's true, why haven't we detected any Higgs? • Why haven't we detected proton decay? • If quantum systems are inherently random, then why don't we have unequivocal proof they are?

12. This indicates: they may not be inherently random! • Photons may have exact characteristics! • We may actually live in a 3D+1 deterministic universe! • Would that be so horrible? • Would whole populations of scientists 'just go crazy' if it were so? • Perhaps ;) • Science has rejected the Other Model even before it was discovered because science rejects anything containing any concept resembling 'the aether' (impedance). • Science rejects the Other Model because it so happens to depend on a Prime Cause for initiating the Big Bang. Is that such a crime?

13. This is slide 13. • Let's avoid 'bad luck' by skipping this number. • Why don't hotels have a 13th floor? • Have you ever wondered? • How much of human behavior is based on superstition? • Have we counted the ways? • Even i find myself knocking on wood..

14. [in jest] • Pretty soon, they will hold hearings for 'scientific heresy' and convict people like me of it.. Pretty soon, people like me will not only be ignored, mocked, and ridiculed - they'll be ostracized, jobless, and even thrown in jail for false reasons - just to keep us quiet. • Why? • Because physics has made a 'big business' of investigating things like the Higgs. • Many jobs depend on things like that.. • When you question things like the Higgs, you become blackballed. • You cannot find decent employment. • It's difficult to find people you can just talk to about alternatives..

15. Truly, a revolution in physics is 'waiting in the wings'. • We must show the general public that conventional physicists are opportunistic conmen. • They will keep their jobs and security at any cost including: • scientific integrity • scientific objectivity • rationality • reasonableness • and any sense of realism.

16. [changing gears a little] • Please don't automatically dismiss Einstein because he was a 'darling' for a very brief time in the history of physics. Bohr crushed him in public and so quantum mechanics has pursued a dead-end via inherent randomness and virtual exchange. Blame Bohr and Feynman if you must blame anyone. Those two men, more than anyone, have put physics on a path of delusion/insanity. • Without GR, we would not have TR. • Even Feynman, without his concept of virtual exchange, i doubt i would have discovered charged antiphotons to explain electromagnetism. • .. An old friend of mine stated: "physics goes in circles/cycles" .. Sometimes, physics is dominated by determinism, sometimes it's dominated by virtual randomness, and someday, it will return to rationality.. • i can pray, i can hope, and i can make every effort possible for that to come true..

17. nine theorems/conjecture • Definitions: • adequate: reflecting reality with accuracy and precision • quantum reality: elementary particles, photons, and antiphotons are real local causal entities with precise attributes, resembling spacetime wavelets / spacelets, at any one instant of spacetime • antiphoton: negative curvature, some proportion charged, electromagnetic-temporal spacelet; a transverse electromagnetic wave oscillating out-of-phase with negative temporal curvature • temporal relativity: deeper / more fundamental than general relativity, based on temporal curvature, further based on the elasticity of time • temporal impedance: another aspect of time: the delay of electromagnetic events, previously assigned to space but with deeper understanding - associated with time

18. Theorem 1: no adequate theory of quantum gravity will ever developed based on virtual exchange and inherent randomness in 3D+1 dimensions. • Reason: gravity is not based on virtual exchange; it's based on temporal curvature. • Corollary 1: no adequate unification theory will ever be developed to explain the 'four forces' based on virtual exchange and inherent randomness in 3D+1 dimensions.

19. Theorem 2: QED is so successful because it mimics an underlying quantum reality based on charged antiphotons. • Theorem 3: self-interference is explainable with spacelet theory. • Theorem 4: the 'weak force' is a misnomer and is completely explainable in the quantum realism framework as a direct result of: nuclear geometry, spin, and vibration. • Theorem 5: the strong force is based on temporal curvature. • Theorem 6: reality is based on quantum realism not inherent randomness and virtual exchange.

20. Theorem 7: spacetime is causal, realistic, and continuous: 3 flat Euclidean dimensions and one unidirectional/causal time dimension that can curve into space. • Theorem 8: time/spacetime has two very specific and interrelated qualities with equivalent characteristics as impedance and elasticity; time/spacetime is not strictly Euclidean with no properties; space may be equivalent to R^3, but time may resemble a vector. • Theorem 9: conservation of curvature: creation/destruction of matter/energy always conserves curvature; the curvature of inputs to an event always equals the output; matter annihilation / pair production always conserves curvature; photon creation/emission and destruction/absorption always conserves curvature.

21. Discussion: • Historically, quantum mechanics has pulled away from religion and 'the ether' because these concepts impede the progress of science. Religions have attempted to control perceptions and beliefs which relate to scientific truth. Religions have claimed a unique relationship with God and so the concept of God is rejected by conventional science. The ether has been rejected as a medium for electromagnetism. This has been essentially proven beyond reasonable doubt. And so any concept resembling or relating to 'the ether', such as the impedance of space, is always automatically rejected by theoretical physics. Unfortunately, the concept of God, as Prime Cause, may be required for a realistic cosmology. And, the concepts of elasticity and impedance may be required for the same.

22. .. Legs are required for walking; wings are required for flying; impedance is required for electromagnetic expression; elasticity is required for 'things to stretch' .. Something must have elasticity to stretch/deform; something must have impedance to delay electromagnetic events. The simpler theory associates impedance and elasticity with time. Temporal relativity is the general theory which includes/requires temporal elasticity. Temporal impedance is somewhat speculative in this framework but seems to fit the general scheme.

23. The easiest way to 'prove me wrong'.. • ..is to dismiss me as 'lunatic fringe'.. • The more objective/fair/scientific way.. • ..is to disprove each point above in a rational / reasonable way.. • i personally challenge each member of NPA and each member of conventional theoretical physics – to disprove each point above.. • Otherwise, we cannot make progress in science.

24. Some associated links: • https://www.msu.edu/~micheal/WfM.pdf • a booklet on 'God-physics' • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_realism • while it lasts;) - as of 2001/JUL/17 - has been deleted • http://www.nowpublic.com/user/483721/assignments • lists of articles on NowPublic • http://www.scribd.com/sam_micheal • 'backup' of articles above